WnfflioiM'  IffiS 

itHffi  plyljli;!.'!;:!.'!!;::'!:. 

Ite 


■EllliHHigHpnHMM 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/presbyterianchur00pres_67 


PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America, 

AGAINST 

» 

The  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  PROCEEDINGS. 


PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America, 


AGAINST 


The  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 


Extracts  from  the  Proceedings,  of 
November  28th,  1S92. 


/ 


Dr.  lampes  reply  to  objections 

FILED  BY  Professor  BRIGGS  UNDER 
SECTION  22  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  DISCIPLINE. 


PRESS  OF 
DOUGLAS  TAYLOR 
8  WARREN  ST. 
N.  Y. 


Professor  Briggs  having  filed  objections  to  the  amended 
charges  and  specifications  as  provided  by  Section  22  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline,  Dr.  Lampe  replied  as  follows: 

Mr.  Moderator  and  Brethren:  Dr.  Briggs  has  made  some 
severe  reflections  on  the  personnel  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee, 
for  which  we  do  not  care,  but  he  has  not  demonstrated  the  in¬ 
validity  of  the  amended  charges  and  specifications. 

At  the  point  which  we  have  now  reached  in  this  judicial  case, 
there  are  two  questions  to  be  considered  by  this  Court,  and  only 
two,  namely:  1,  Are  the  charges  and  specifications  as  amended 
by  the  Prosecuting  Committee  now  sufficient  in  form  and  legal 
effect?  And  2,  Has  the  general  nature  of  the  original  charges 
and  specifications  been  adhered  to  in  the  amended  form?  That 
these  should  both  be  answered  in  the  affirmative  will  be  evi¬ 
dent,  I  think,  from  the  following  considerations: 

1.  The  amended  charges  and  specifications  are  in  strict  con¬ 
formity  to  the  requirements  of  the  Book  of  Discipline.  Dr. 
Briggs  insisted  on  their  insufficiency  as  to  form  and  legal  effect 
unless  they  were  drawn  in  that  form. 

When  he  presented  his  objections  to  the  sufficiency  to  the 
form  and  legal  effect  of  the  original  charges  and  specifications 
last  year,  the  Prosecuting  Committee  recognized  the  fact  that 
some  of  the  objections,  though  purely  technical,  were  well  taken; 
but  felt  that  the  only  offer  of  amendment  to  be  made  by  them, 
until  after  the  Presbytery  had  determined  upon  the  validity  of 
the  objections,  could  be  in  form  of  suggestion  respecting  a 
method  of  amendment. 

But  a  more  deliberate  examination  of  the  Book  of  Discipline 
showed  that  the  Committee  may  ask<  the^Presbytery  to  determine 
formally  and  without  discussion  of  tthe  merits  of  4ithe.  case, 
whether  or  not  the  objections  are  valid,  in  order  that  amend¬ 
ments  affecting  the  form  and  legal  effect '  may  be  made  if  con¬ 
sidered  necessary. 

Accordingly,  at  the  last  session  of  this  Court,,- permission  was 
asked  to  present  the  charges  and  specifications  in  ^amended 
form;  which  request  was  granted,  with  the  concurrence  of  the 


4 


defense,  after  the  necessary  pro  forma  vote,  in  favor  of  sustain¬ 
ing  Dr.  Briggs’  objections  to  the  form  and  legal  effect  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  previously  presented,  had  been 
passed. 

When  the  question  of  amendment  was  considered,  there 
appeared  to  be  need  only  of  a  few  petty  changes  in  form,  such 
as  the  transference  of  a  single  paragraph  from  the  first  charge 
to  each  specification,  and  the  subdivision  of  the  second  charge; 
since  the  objection,  that  the  specifications  were  not  relevant  to 
the  charge,  was  a  matter  to  be  decided  after  the  questions 
involved  in  the  charges  and  specifications  had  been  argued. 

But  maturer  consideration  led  to  the  conclusion  that,  being 
not  a  personal  but  an  official  prosecutor,  the  Committee  is  in 
duty  bound  to  do  everything  it  can  to  hasten  the  trial,  to  avoid 
technical  issues,  to  cast  aside  all  questions  of  personal  prefer¬ 
ence,  and,  therefore,  to  concede  all  changes  possible  which 
would  not  involve  a  change  in  the  general  nature  of  the  charges 
and  specifications.  For  these  reasons  the  Committee  determined 
to  recast  the  whole  series  so  as  to  avoid  all  the  objections  of  Dr. 
Briggs,  which,  as  he  stated  at  the  time,  and  as  he  has  stated 
more  than  once  since,  were  offered  in  all  sincerity,  only  in  the 
the  interest  of  orderly  procedure,  and  in  no  wise  with  intent  to 
secure  delay.  In  this  work  of  recasting  the  old  charges  and 
specifications,  the  Committee  has  followed  strictly  the  directions 
of  sections  15  and  16  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  in  regard  to  the 
form  of  charges  and  specifications,  and  we  therefore  state, 
with  the  utmost  confidence  of  your  concurrence,  that  in  their 
amended  form  they  are  entirely  correct  and  sufficient.  This 
will  become  still  more  apparent  in  the  consideration  of  the  other 
question  which  you  have  to  decide  at  this  stage  of  the  proceed¬ 
ings. 

2.  I  will  endeavor  to  make  it  clear  that  the  general  nature 
has  not  been  departed  from.  In  the  attempt  to  amend,  the  ques¬ 
tion  necessarily  arose  in  the  Committee.  What  are  we  to  under¬ 
stand  by  the  term  “  Ge?ieral  Nature  ”  of  the  charges  and  specifi¬ 
cations,  as  used  in  the  22d  section  of  the  Book  of  Discipline? 
That  must  be  the  sense  also  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  mandate 
of  the  General  Assembly  to  the  Presbytery  in  this  case. 


5 


On  the  answer  to  this  question  would  depend  the  Committee  s 
right  to  accept  the  objections  of  Dr.  Briggs  as  suggestions,  and 
so  to  recast  the  document  as  to  relieve  him  from  the  burden  of 
further  objecting  in  the  interest  of  orderly  procedure. 

The  language  of  Section  22  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  which 
is:  “  Permit,  in  the  furtherance  of  justice,  amendments  to  the 
specifications  or  charges,  not  changing  the  general  nature  of  the 
same, ’’can  signify  only  that  the  term  “general  nature’  has 
reference  to  the  inherent  nature,  to  the  general  intent  and  signi¬ 
fication  of  the  charges  and  specifications,  and  not  in  anywise  to 
their  sufficiency  in  form  and  legal  effect.  That  this  is  the  cor¬ 
rect  interpretation  of  the  term  must  be  evident  from  the  fact 
that  the  Book  in  this  same  section  authorizes  the  judicatory  to 
allow  amendments  after  objections  to  the  sufficiency  in  form  and 
legal  effect  have  been  sustained  as  valid. 

This  is  clearly  the  only  construction  to  be  put  upon  the 
language  of  the  Book;  and,  on  the  basis  of  it,  the  Committee 
might  have  exercised  a  wider  liberty  than  it  has  actually  taken. 
For  evidently  the  term  “general  nature”  has  been  put  in  the 
Book  advisedly  as  against  particular  or  specific  nature,  in  order 
that  a  prosecutor  called  upon  to  amend  specifications  or  charges 
might  not  be  unduly  restricted  in  that  work.  And,  since  the 
general  nature  of  the  indictment  against  Dr.  Briggs  is  that  of 
advancing  heretical  opinions,  it  might  be  justly  claimed,  as  some 
do,  that  any  amendments  within  that  general  scope  would  be  in 
accord  with  the  rule.  But,  since  that  might  give  rise  to  pro¬ 
tracted  controversy,  the  Committee  did  not  desire  to  avail  itself 
of  any  such  liberty.  The  amended  charges  and  specifications 
contain  precisely  the  same  matter  which  was  presented  in  the 
original  one;  nothing  more  and  nothing  less.  It  is  all  there: 
Source  of  Divine  authority,  inspiration,  genuineness,  prophecy 
and  redemption  after  death.  The  only  difference  is  in  their  form 
as  altered  to  meet  the  objections  of  Dr.  Briggs  and  the  require¬ 
ments  of  the  Book. 

The  Committee,  recognizing  the  earnest  desire  of  all  to  have 
the  matter  brought  to  a  final  issue  as  speedily  as  is  consistent 
with  the  proper  consideration  of  the  matters  involved,  proceeded 
simply  to  recast  the  old  charges  and  specifications  in  such  a  way 


as  formally  to  harmonize  with  the  Book  and  meet  Dr.  Briggs’ 
objections,  important  and  unimportant  alike. 

The  charge  of  fickleness  is  entirely  uncalled  for.  We  have 
simply  tried  to  obviate  the  objections  of  Dr.  Briggs  as  to  form 
and  legal  effect. 

In  this  recasting,  the  old  specifications  are  in  large  part  denom¬ 
inated  charges,  receiving  thereby  their  proper  name;  for  they 
assert  that  certain  teachings  or  declarations  are  contrary  to  the 
Word  of  God  and  the  Standards  of  the  Church.  They  also 
give  the  quotations  and  thus  allege  an  offense  in  the  sense  of  the 
3d  and  4th  sections  of  the  Book  of  Discipline.  In  the  amended 
copy  they  are  named  charges  and  specifications. 

In  some  instances,  where  the  original  specifications  covered 
the  same  ground,  they  have  been  combined  for  the  sake  of  con¬ 
ciseness.  The  particular  doctrine  alleged  to  be  attacked  or 
opposed  is  given  specifically  in  the  charge  instead  of  broadly, 
so  before  in  terms  of  Scripture  and  the  Standards;  and,  wher¬ 
ever  possible,  the  paraphrases  have  been  omitted  and  the  actual 
language  of  the  accused  has  been  substituted  therefor. 

It  is  not  always  possible  to  use  exactly  the  language  of  the 
author  in  preparing  the  charges,  and  a  summary  statement  must 
therefore  be  given.  This  may  appear  to  be  inferential  in  form, 
but  the  court  must  determine,  after  trial,  whether  any  other 
interpretation  can  be  put  on  the  language  quoted.  This  ques¬ 
tion  cannot  be  settled  as  a  matter  of  preliminary  objection.  At 
the  same  time  it  is  fully  conceded  that  it  is  but  just  and  honest 
to  use  the  author’s  own  words,  when  the  statement  is  brief 
enough  to  admit  of  a  separation  from  its  context  without  doing 
violence  to  the  meaning. 

The  comparison  in  detail  need  not  be  extended,  since  every 
member  of  this  court  has  had  the  original  and  the  amended 
charges  in  his  hands,  and  has  thus  had  full  opportunity  to  ascer¬ 
tain  the  character  and  extent  of  the  alterations  made.  A  few 
explanations  may,  however,  be  helpful  toward  enabling  the 
members  of  the  court  clearly  to  see  that  all  the  requirements 
have  been  made  within  the  limit  of  the  general  nature. 

Specifications  one,  two,  three  and  four  of  the  first  original 
charge  were  declared  by  Dr.  Briggs  to  be  irrelevant  to  that 


7 


charge.  We  considered  ourselves  competent  to  prove  them  to 
be  relevant.  But  it  is  true  that  they  are  in  the  form  of  distinct 
charges,  though  not  so  entitled.  And,  since  they  all  cover  the 
same  general  ground  of  the  source  of  Divine  authority,  we  have 
combined  them  into  one  charge,  which,  however,  has  been 
divided  into  Charges  I.  and  II.  to  obviate  the  possible  objection 
that  more  than  one  offense  is  alleged.  There  are  not  two,  but 
one  charge  only  in  each  of  them,  viz.  :  that  the  “  Reason  and 
Church  respectively  savingly  enlighten  men.” 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  combination  as  in  the  amended  form, 
will  simplify  the  discussion  and  render  the  final  decision  less 
cumbrous. 

To  Specification  five  under  the  first  charge  of  the  old  copy, 
Dr.  Briggs  made  the  double  objections  that  it  was  in  the  form 
of  a  charge,  and  that,  in  using  the  expression  “makes  state¬ 
ments,  it  alleged  more  than  one  offense.  In  the  amended 
series,  these  objections  are  entirely  obviated.  In  it  the  specifi¬ 
cation  appears  as  Charge  III.,  which,  instead  of  saying  “makes 
statements,”  tells  what  the  statements  are,  they  being  repeated 
with  their  context  in  the  appended  specification.  In  regard  to 
Specification  six  under  the  first  charge,  Dr.  Briggs  said:  “It  is 
irrelevant  to  the  charge.  If  it  be  a  valid  offense  it  ought  to  have 
been  made  the  ground  of  a  distinct  charge.”  It,  therefore, 
appears  in  the  amended  form  as  Charges  V.  and  VI.,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  possible  objection  of  alleging  two  offenses.  The 
statement  that  the  assertions  are  contrary  to  the  Scripture  and 
to  the  Standards  is  inserted  in  the  body  of  the  charge  specific¬ 
ally,  and  is  retained  also  in  the  specification  as  before. 

The  7th  and  last  specification  of  the  first  charge  becomes 
Charge  IV.  in  the  amended  series.  The  charge  is  in  Dr.  Briggs’ 
own  words,  and  thus  avoids  his  objection  of  “  invalid  inferences 
and  statements.”  As  in  the  other  cases,  the  specific  doctrine 
opposed  is  here  also  named  in  the  body  of  the  charge  and  given 
again  in  the  quotation  as  before. 

On  the  2d  charge  of  the  old  form,  Dr.  Briggs  passed  the  fol¬ 
lowing  strictures :  “  It  is  indefinite  and  vague  for  the  reason 

that  it  does  not  define  what  precise  doctrine  it  is,  out  of  the 
many  different  doctrines  taught  by  theologians  in  this  depart- 


8 


ment  of  Eschatology,  that  is  an  offense.”  It  is  true  the  charge 
does  appear  somewhat  broad  and  indefinite.  The  Committee 
aimed  to  generalize  in  one  charge  the  ideas  of  Dr.  Briggs  con¬ 
cerning  redemption  after  death,  and  so  may  have  laid  them¬ 
selves  open  to  the  charge  of  having  made  a  vague  statement; 
but  they  thought  that  the  extended  quotation  from  the  Inaug¬ 
ural  Address,  given  in  the  specification  under  the  charge,  would 
relieve  it  of  all  indefiniteness,  and  make  clear  exactly  what  was 
meant  by  it.  Had  the  Committee  obtained  the  opportunity  to 
present  their  case,  they  would  have  made  the  meaning  clear. 
However,  the  matter  contained  in  the  2d  charge  has  now  been 
divided,  and  appears  in  the  definite  and  specific  statements  of 
the  7th  and  8th  charges  of  the  amended  form,  in  each  of  which 

the  doctrines  opposed  are  also  indicated. 

The  contention  that  in  amending  the  2d  charge,  in  which  “a 
doctrine  ”  concerning  “  the  character,  state  and  sanctification  of 
believers  after  death  ”  is  made  the  ground  of  accusation,  the 
general  nature  has  been  changed,  since  the  7th  charge  of  the 
amended  form  has  reference  to  the  salvation  in  the  next  world 
of  those  who  die  in  sin,  cannot  be  considered  pertinent. 

The  broadness  of  the  2d  charge,  which  made  it  so  vague  to 
Dr.  Briggs,  fairly  covers  both  the  7th  and  8th  charges  of  the 
new  series,  especially  since  the  matter  of  both  was  in  the 
extended  specification  which  was  appended  to  the  old  charge. 
It  may  have  been  infelicitously  worded,  but  it  conveys  no  false 
nor  misleading  impression,  for  on  the  face  of  the  statements, 
Dr.  Briggs,  apparently,  at  least,  teaches  that  many  of  Christ  s 
people  do  not  repent  nor  do  they  become  believers  until  after 
they  die,  since  their  redemption  is  accomplished  in  the  middle 
state,  and  therefore  their  character  and  state  after  death  must  be 
affected  by  the  fact  that  they  departed  this  life  in  their  sins.  Dr. 
Briggs  affirmed  that  “the  process”  and  “the  processes”  of  redemp¬ 
tion  are  accomplished  in  the  middle  state,  and  that  certainly 
must  mean  that  some  people  are  saved  there.  The  peculiarity 
of  his  position  is  this,  that  he  conveys  the  idea  that  many 
of  Christ’s  people  do  not  attain  to  the  condition  of  believers 
until  after  death  in  the  middle  state.  It  must  have  been  under¬ 
stood  that  the  matter  which  is  now  specifically  presented  in  the 


9 


7th  charge  was  contained  in  the  2d  charge  of  the  old  form,  for 
in  the  debate  on  the  motion  to  dismiss  the  case,  Dr.  Shedd  used 
this  language:  “Dr.  Briggs  has  said  that  he  does  not  believe 
in  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  but  he  has  not  said  that  he  does 
not  believe  that  part  of  the  human  family  are  redeemed  in  the 
middle  state;  that  stands.  ” 

And  if  now  we  are  to  understand  that  the  general  nature  of 
the  old  charge  limits  us  to  the  specific  matter  which  now 
is  lodged  in  the  8th  charge  of  the  amended  form,  viz.  :  the  pro¬ 
gressive  santification  of  the  believer  after  death,  then  that  charge 
was  not  vague  and  indefinite,  as  has  been  alleged,  and  no  mean¬ 
ing  can  be  attributed  to  the  other  two  terms  which  are  used 
therein. 

But  even  if  the  matter,  which  is  now  definitely  formulated 
in  the  7th  charge  of  the  new  form,  was  not  in  the  2d  charge  of 
the  old,  even  granting  that  it  was  not,  still  the  introduction  of 
it  into  the  amended  series,  does  not  change  the  general  nature 
or  intent  of  the  old,  for  that  dealt  with  the  subject  of  redemption 
after  death,  to  which  also  the  new  case  brings  itself.  The  con¬ 
tention,  that  in  amending,  the  Committee  has  violated  the  rule 
on  this  point,  has  no  force  in  it  except  by  insisting  that  we  must 
not  go  beyond  the  limit  of  the  specific  nature  in  the  amended 
form,  and  hardly  even  then. 

Furthermore,  the  plea  that  the  general  nature  has  been  changed 
for  the  reason  that  in  some  instances  the  doctrine  alleged  to  have 
been  attacked  has  been  changed,  cannot  be  seriously  considered. 
The  doctrines  contradicted  were  only  given  broadly  under  all  the 
specifications.  And  that  was  sufficient,  as  we  shall  see.  The  new 
one  specified  in  the  5th  and  6th  charges  of  the  amended  form,  for 
instance,  was  quoted  at  least  four  times  under  the  first  charge 
and  was  therefore  in  evidence.  Moreover,  the  doctrine  contra¬ 
dicted  forms  no  part  of  the  charge,  and,  therefore,  its  change  or 
omission  cannot  in  any  wise  change  the  nature  of  the  charge. 
According  to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Sect.  15,  a  charge  is  com¬ 
plete  when  it  sets  forth  the  alleged  offense.  The  Assembly  of 
i824  gives  the  opinion  that  the  doctrine  which  is  opposed  should 
be  indicated,  but  says  that  the  reference  may  be  either  to  the 
Holy  Scripture  directly  or  to  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Either 


10 


is  sufficient,  but  the  preference  is  given  to  the  Holy  Scripture. 
According  to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Section  3,  “An  offense  is 
anything  in  the  doctrine,  principles  or  practice  of  a  church 
officer  which  is  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God.”  And  since  the 
Scripture  references  under  these  charges  are  the  same,  only  leoS 
in  number,  the  general  nature  cannot  be  regarded  as  changed 
merely  for  the  reason  that  we  have  exchanged  one  section  from 
the  1st  chapter  of  the  Confession  for  another,  since  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  reference  alone  is  sufficient  to  indicate  the  doctrine  contra¬ 
dicted.  The  same  argument  precisely  applies  to  the  transfor¬ 
mation  of  the  seventh  specification  of  the  old  series  into  the 
fourth  charge  of  the  new.  The  general  nature  has  not  been 
changed  by  the  mere  substitution  of  sections  one  and  two  of 
the  2d  Chapter  of  the  Confession  for  the  fifth  section  of  the  first, 
for  if  these  two  sections  were  withdrawn,  the  fourth  section  of 
the  1st  Chapter  of  the  Confession,  and  the  fourth  question  and 
answer  of  the  Shorter  Catechism  contain  all  the  attributes  of 
God  indicated  in  the  amended  charge,  and  they  are  found  in 
the  old  form.  The  Scripture  texts  are  also  there,  and  they  alone 
would  have  been  sufficient. 

Nor  does  this  charge  allege  two  offenses.  It  treats  of  the  one 
offense  of  the  denial  of  the  fulfillment  of  many  biblical  predic¬ 
tions.  The  offense  would  be  precisely  the  same  if  the  doctrines 
given  from  the  Confession  as  opposed  in  the  4th,  5th,  and  6th 
charges,  were  removed,  since  the  Standards  do  not  require  them 
to  be  put  in  the  charge,  and  it  would  be  competent  for  the  Com¬ 
mittee  to  show  from  the  Scripture  and  Standards  broadly  given, 
the  validity  and  gravity  of  it. 

It  is  seen,  therefore,  that  the  amended  charges  and  specifica¬ 
tions  are  correct  and  sufficient  in  form  and  legal  effect  accord¬ 
ing  to  sections  15  and  16  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  in  that  each 
charge  sets  forth  the  alleged  offense,  and  but  one  offense,  and 
the  specifications  set  forth  the  facts  relied  upon  to  sustain  the 
charges,  and  declare  also  the  time,  place  and  circumstances. 
The  specifications  are  relevant,  for  the  reason  that  they  conform 
to  the  requirements  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  in  setting  forth  the 
facts  relied  upon  to  sustain  the  charges.  If  anything  more  than 
that  is  meant  by  the  word  “  relev ant,”  then  it  cannot  be  made  a 


1 


11 


matter  of  preliminary  demonstration,  but  must  be  determined 
in  the  trial. 

The  omissions,  additions  and  changes  made  in  the  quotations 
from  the  Inaugural  Address,  the  Standards  and  the  Bible,  have 
been  made  in  the  interest  of  conciseness,  brevity  and  clearness. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  the  italicizing  of  those  paragraphs  of 
the  quotations  from  the  Confession  to  which  your  attention  is 
particularly  directed.  None  of  these  things  affect  the  general 
nature  in  any  way. 

It  is  not  material  where  the  text  and  citations  from  the  Bible 
and  Confession  are  placed.  The  Book  does  not  say  where,  and 
the  Assembly  merely  said  that  there  should  be  reference  to  the 
Scripture  and  Standards. 

The  Scripture,  Confession  and  the  Inaugural,  so  far  as  they 
refer  to  the  case,  have  been  put  in  evidence;  and  that  is  entirely 
just,  for  we  believe  in  the  Analogy  of  Faith.  Professors  in 
Theological  Seminaries  and  the  ministers  and  elders  of  our 
Church  ought  to  know  what  Scripture  teaches  on  any  particular 
doctrine. 

We  are  ready  to  put  all  the  omitted  texts  back  again  if  the 
defense  desires  it. 

The  Craighead  case  has  been  referred  to,  and  as  its  influence 
is  sought  in  this  case,  it  may  be  well  to  make  a  concise  state¬ 
ment  of  it  here.  There  are  some  points  in  that  decision  to 
which  I  think  Dr.  Briggs  would  seriously  object. 

The  Synod  of  Kentucky  had,  virtually  on  the  recommenda¬ 
tion  of  the  Presbytery  of  Transylvania,  suspended  Mr.  Craig¬ 
head  from  the  ministry. 

The  Assembly  stated  that  the  Synod  had  been  in  too  much 
haste,  but  said  that  they  might  have  “  proceeded  instantly  to 
condemn  the  error  of  Mr.  Craighead’s  book,”  as  the  Assembly  did 
in  the  case  of  The  Gospel  Plan  of  W.  C.  Davis,  and  then  try  Mr. 
Craighead  at  their  leisure.  The  Assembly  expressed  the  opinion 
that  statements  which  may  fairly  be  interpreted  so  as  to  involve 
no  heretical  doctrines,  the  more  favorable  construction  should 
be  allowed,  to  this  we  agree  if  the  more  favorable  construction 
is  not  contrary  to  the  evidence. 

Then  most  of  the  charges  against  Mr.  Craighead  were  trivial, 


12 


simple  charges  in  the  air.  One  charge  was  that  he  had  perverted 
the  sentiments  of  the  preachers  and  writers  in  our  connection ;  and 
in  another  he  was  charged  with  false  coloring  of  facts,  sustained 
by  no  quotations  from  his  book,  no  reference  either  to  the  Bible 
or  the  Confession,  and  without  a  record  of  the  oral  testimony 
given.  It  was  with  such  charges  before  them  that  the  Assembly 
very  properly  said  that  a  man  ought  not  to  be  condemned  by 
inferences  from  his  statements. 

This  must  have  been  their  meaning,  for  they  afterwards  said: 
“But  while  the  General  Assembly  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
charges  against  Mr.  Craighead  are  not  clearly  and  fully  sup 
ported  by  the  references,  they  find  it  to  be  their  duty  to  say 
that  the  impressions  which  they  have  received  from  hearing 
extracts  from  this  discqurse  are  very  unfavorable  ;  and  they  do 
believe  that  Mr.  Craighead  by  preaching  and  printing  this  ser¬ 
mon  did  subject  himself  justly  to  censure. 

And,  perhaps  as  bearing  on  the  present  case,  they  said : 

“But  they  cannot  approve  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Craighead 
when  before  the  Synod.  He  indeed  manifested  a  lofty  and 
independent  spirit,  that  would  not  be  controlled  by  authority, 
and  there  was  not  exhibited  a  due  respect  for  the  Synod,  as  an 
acknowledged  judicatory  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  His  con¬ 
duct  was  not  respectful  and  conciliatory,  which  certainly  was  a 
return  that  their  tenderness  to  him  called  for,  but  it  was  that  of 
a  bold  and  confident  controvertist  who  sets  his  opponents  at 
defiance.  The  publication  of  this  sermon  and  defense  of  Mr. 
Craighead  after  he  had  so  earnestly  been  entreated  by  the  Synod 
not  to  offend  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession  and.  the 
feelings  of  his  Christian  brethren  was  even  more  reprehensible, 
as  far  as  evidenced  before  us,  than  the  first  preaching  of  it. 

The  fact  is,  that  owing  to  the  gross  irregularity  of  procedure, 
both  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery  of  Transylvania  and  of  the 
Synod  of  Kentucky,  the  case  against  Mr.  Craighead  was  .  a  mis¬ 
trial.  This  case  is  in  most  important  and  vital  respects  different 
from  the  Craighead  case.  While  we  are  perfectly  willing  to 
give  all  valid  precedents  the  weight  which  is  due  to  them,  this 
case  should  be  conducted  according  to  the  rules  of  our  present 
Book  of  Discipline. 


13 


Dr.  Briggs  contends  that  the  charges  and  specifications  can¬ 
not  be  considered  sufficient  for  setting  forth  valid  offenses  unless 
the  committee  show  that  the  doctrines,  indicated  as  contra¬ 
dicted,  are  essential.  But  this  is  one  of  the  points  which  is  to 
be  decided  by  this  Court  in  the  trial,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be 
made  a  question  of  a  preliminary  objection.  However,  since 
Dr.  Briggs  has  dwelt  upon  this  matter,  a  few  words  may  be 
said  upon  it  here.  The  word  essential  is  itself  undefined  in  our 
ecclesiastical  nomenclature,  and  may  become  misleading. 
Essential  to  what,  and  in  what  sense?  The  Standards  do  not 
employ  the  word,  and  there  was  no  real  necessity  for  putting  it 
into  the  charges.  They  would  have  been  correct  in  form  with¬ 
out  it  since  the  Standards  do  not  require  it.  It  was  used  in 
connection  with  the  subscription  to  the  Standards  in  1729,  but 
not  in  1788  when  our  Constitution  was  adopted,  and  it  has  come 
into  use  now  to  some  extent  in  connection  with  the  subscription 
to  our  Standards.  It  is  said  that  those  who  subscribe  accept 
them  in  respect  to  essential  doctrines,  although  the  formula  of 
subscription  does  not  contain  the  word.  It  uses  the  phrase 
“  System  of  doctrine  ”  instead.  But  we  do  not  give  our  consent 
to  the  Holy  Scripture  in  that  way,  but  accept  it  in  its  integrity, 
in  its  entirety,  without  reservation  of  any  kind.  The  Standards 
themselves  bow  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
The  Confession  states  (Chap.  XXXI.,  Sec.  3),  “  All  synods  or 
councils  since  the  Apostles’  time,  whether  general  or  particular, 
may  err,  and  many  have  erred.  Therefore  they  are  not  to  be 
made  the  rule  of  faith  or  practice,  but  to  be  used  as  a  help  in 
both.” 

Their  decrees  are  only  to  be  received  in  so  far  as  they  are 
“  consonant  to  the  word  of  God.”  The  Standards  declare  that 
the  Holy  Scripture  is  to  be  received  for  the  reason  that  it  is  the 
Word  of  God,  having  the  God  of  Truth  as  its  Author,  that  it  is 
most  necessary,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedience  by  which 
all  controversies  of  religion  are  to  be  determined.  They  bind 
the  conscience  only  by  the  Word  of  God. 

It  is  owing  to  this  position  of  supreme  authority  accorded  to 
the  Bible  that  our  form  of  Government,  Chap.  1,  Sec.  7,  states: 
“  That  all  church  power,  whether  exercised  by  the  body  in  gen- 


14 


eral,  or  in  the  way  of  representation  by  delegated  authority,  is 
only  ministerial  and  declarative;  that  is  to  say ,  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  manner;  that  no  church 
judicatory  ought  to  pretend  to  make  laws,  to  bind  the  conscience 
in  virtue  of  their  own  authority;  and  that  all  their  decisions 
should  be  founded  upon  the  revealed  will  of  God.”  To  the  same 
purport  Sec.  3  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  states:  “An  offense  is 
anything  in  the  doctrine,  principles  or  practice  of  a  church  mem¬ 
ber,  officer  or  judicatory,  which  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God, 
or  which,  if  it  be  not  in  its  own  nature  sinful,  may  tempt  others 
to  sin,  or  mar  their  spiritual  edification.” 

According  to  our  Standards,  then,  everything  is  essential, 
which  touches  the  integrity  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  any  of  its 
doctrines.  And  for  this  reason  our  Book  of  Discipline  says, 
Sec.  4:  “Nothing  shall  therefore  be  the  object  of  judicial  pro¬ 
cess  which  cannot  be  proved  to  be  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  or  to  the  regulations  and  practice  of  the  Church  founded 
thereon.” 

Our  Book  of  Discipline  thus  defines  an  indictable  offense  to  be 
anything  that  can  be  shown  to  be  contrary,  first  of  all  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  and  then,  as  an  alternative,  to  the  Standards 
and  practice  of  the  Church,  and  to  these  latter  only  because 
they  are  founded  on  the  Scripture.  This  gives  us  a  double 
basis  for  an  indictment,  either  the  Scripture  or  the  Standards 
founded  thereon.  And  further,  matters  not  wrong  in  them¬ 
selves,  but  which  may  lead  others  to  sin,  or  mar  their  spiritual 
edification  are  indictable  offenses;  and  hence  teachings  which 
shake  people’s  confidence  in  the  Bible  and  undermine  faith  may 
properly  be  made  subjects  of  judicial  process. 

In  view  of  all  this  it  is  certainly  astonishing  that  Dr.  Briggs 
should  state  in  his  Response  to  the  old  charges  and  specifica¬ 
tions,  page  122,  “These  regulations  and  decisions  of  the  supreme 
court  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  require  that  nothing  shall  be 
considered  as  an  offense  which  is  not  contrary  to  an  essential 
and  necessary  article  of  the  Westminster  Confession.” 

What  are  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  the  Westmin¬ 
ster  Confession  of  Faith  ?  Has  any  one  ever  determined  their 
character  and  number?  Are  we  to  understand  by  them  the  five 


15 


points  of  Calvinism?  If  so,  there  remains  certainly  a  wide 
range  of  essential  truth  outside  of  them.  But  if  the  Supreme 
Court  of  our  Church  has  ever  made  such  a  decision — which  I 
doubt — it  has  no  relevancy  here.  The  Book  says  that  any¬ 
thing  which  can  be  proved  to  be  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  or  to  the  regulations  and  practice  of  the  Church  founded 
thereon  is  an  indictable  offense.  That  is  the  law  of  our  Church 
now.  In  the  decision  of  the  Craighead  case,  the  Assembly 
stated  that  the  reference  in  charges  for  heresy  should  be  directly 
to  the  Scriptures,  as  a  standard  of  orthodoxy,  or  to  their  Confes¬ 
sion  of  Faith.  Previous  to  1821,  the  Scriptures  alone  appear  to 
have  been  made  the  basis  of  indictment  in  our  Church  courts. 
In  the  Book  of  Discipline,  which  was  adopted  in  1788,  and 
which  continued  to  be  the  law  of  the  Church  until  1821,  this 
rule  is  laid  down  in  the  2d  Article:  “No  accusation  shall  be 
admitted  as  the  foundation  of  a  process  before  an  ecclesiastical 
judicatory,  but  where  such  offenses  are  alleged,  as  appear  from 
the  Word  of  God,  to  merit  public  notice  and  censure  of  the 
Church.”  In  1821  that  old  Book  of  Discipline  was  revised  and 
the  alternative  clause,  which  we  now  have  in  Sec.  4  of  our  pres¬ 
ent  Book,  viz.,  “or  to  the  regulations  and  practice  of  the 
Church  founded  thereon,”  taken  from  the  Book  of  the  Scottish 
Church,  was  added  as  a  further  basis  of  indictment. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  law  and  practice  of  our  Church  for 
more  than  a  hundred  years.  And  in  the  light  of  this  we  see 
that  the  amended  form  of  the  charges  and  specifications  sub¬ 
mitted  by  the  Prosecuting  Committee  in  this  case  are  sufficient 
to  put  the  accused  on  his  defense,  since  they  set  forth  valid 
offenses,  in  that  they  indicate  contradictions  of  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Standards  of  the  Church. 

It  is  for  the  Committee  to  prove  that  the  offenses  are  of  a 
nature  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards,  and 
for  the  Court  to  decide  on  the  validity  of  the  proof  and  the 
gravity  of  the  offense. 

It  must  be  remembered,  in  his  response  of  one  year  ago,  Pro¬ 
fessor  Briggs  filed  objections  to  the  sufficiency  in  form  and  legal 
effect  of  the  charges  and  specifications  as  they  then  stood. 
Those  objections  had  reference,  therefore,  only  to  the  question 


I 


16 


whether  or  not  the  proceedings  were  in  order;  they  were  prelim¬ 
inary  objections,  and  were  not  vital.  Being  recognized  by  him 
as  of  that  class  at  that  time,  it  is  too  late  now  for  him  to  assert 
that  any  charges  made  to  meet  those  objections  are  such  as  to 
change  the  general  nature. 

Dr.  Briggs  has  appealed  to  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  our  Church,  which  is  not  found  in  the  record,  and  which 
would,  in  any  event,  not  be  relevant  to  this  case.  There  is, 
however,  a  decision  of  that  Court  in  reference  to  this  judicial 
case,  which  demands  our  careful  attention  now.  It  says .  The 
case  is  remanded  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  for  a  new  trial, 
with  directions  to  the  said  Presbytery  to  proceed  and  pass  upon 
and  determine  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifications 
in  form  and  legal  effect,  and  to  permit  the  Prosecuting  Com 
mittee  to  amend  the  specifications  or  charges,  not  changing,  the 
general  nature  of  the  same,  if,  in  the  furtherance  of  justice,  it  be 
necessary  to  amend,  so  that  the  case  may  be  brought  to  issue 
and  tried  on  the  merits  thereof  as  speedily  as  may  be  practi¬ 
cable.”  In  sending  down  this  order,  the  Supreme  Court  of  our 
Church,  since  it  had  these  charges  and  specifications  under  con-N 
sideration,  must  have  held  the  charges  sufficient  in  their  general 
nature  or  intent  to  put  the  accused  on  his  defense;  and  the  right 
and  proper  thing  to  do  now  is  to  follow  the  directions  of  that 
Court,  and,  with  the  least  possible  delay,  join  the  issue  and  try  the 
case.  This  is,  no  doubt,  unpleasant  business  to  us  all,  but  it  is 
the  orderly  way  for  Presbyterians  to  settle  such  difficulties,  and 
it  becomes  us  as  members  of  this  Court  of  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ,  to  conduct  the  trial  in  good  spirit,  patiently,  and  with 
that  candor  and  thoroughness  which  shall  commend  the  judg¬ 
ment  which  we  may  reach  to  the  confidence  of  our  Church  at 

large. 


/ 


\ 


, 

v  ^  •  v  •>.  .  -•  '•  a  v-.-  ■•?  '  A  /  •  ':v'  v-  ’*  v. 

'  v  ’  *  '•  w.  '  v.,  -■  -  '  1 

.S'  •.  f  ■  ■  v.  •■  .  .  :- 


(A 


(  &:-i\  ■  .  r  '  '  ^  .  ,  '  •  ■  .  V;  !■>$<  V;.- 

•  ^  '  }  v;  V'7v,,vr,  VyH'V .  -  y<r<.;  '  .V\ '<>;  , ;  ■  V&  \  |;  "  mV:  ■»"'>  ..vi  ‘  V 

•  1  ,v  ,.  '  .:  -  V-:  •  ;\  •  :  -r,  I-  *•  "...  '  ■  *i  -  V  •  .*i 


-  -  \  «  hi*  '  n,  „  ■  .t  u  'ii  \  ;  , '  nj 

\  -  •  vC'  r  -  'V  '  m,  j.  y.,y" 

V  ,  r!  ■  ■  ,  ■  ;  3- 

■  "•  ■.  ?;  fr-  \  '"-•M  .  ■'  f  .  ' 

-  '.At  s  •  -l  *v  »  •  ,  ■  h'  -  1  V  -  *  •*'  <  '  ^  ; 

v  . ,  s  4  •  .  %*.  , , .  04  ■  ■  •  .  :  ••  ■  ;  -  ■»  /■  .  x  /  .  .  v  .v  v  -  4.-  ' 


fev  VV-':v  V'>?  V:  '  M:  'y  '  V.'  \  .  '•  ■  v;V 

. 


f  Xa’v  . 


